William Roth

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I would like to express my views with respect to the issue of background checks at gun shows in relation to the amendments we have today before the Senate. I am a strong supporter of the second amendment; however, I also believe we must maintain procedures to ensure that guns do not find their way to the wrong hands. This is why I have supported the instant check system which is currently in place. I have reviewed the amendment offered by Senator Lautenberg and the amendment offered by Senator Craig. I have concerns with both. In my view the amendment offered by Senator Lautenberg goes much further than simply requiring a background check for purchases at gun shows. It would put in place new and burdensome record requirements for gun show operators and vendors and provide the Secretary of the Treasury with unlimited authority to issue additional regulations. On the other hand, the amendment offered by Senator Craig, in my view, does not go far enough. Senator Craig's amendment merely outlines a voluntary or optional background check process. Mr. President, consistent with my view and past support of the Brady bill, I would support a straightforward background check system for gun show sales, but that is not the choice we have before us today.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. As if in morning business.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be permitted to speak as if in morning business for up to 5 minutes, and that following their remarks there be a quorum call: Senator Roth, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Kennedy.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, in January, I joined Senators Moynihan, Jeffords, and Kennedy to introduce S. 331, the Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999. This legislation has a simple objective--to help people with disabilities go to work if they want to go to work, without fear of losing their health insurance lifeline. S. 331 creates two new Medicaid options for States to make it possible for people with disabilities who choose to work to do so without jeopardizing health insurance access. The bill also extends Medicare part A coverage for a 10-year trial period for individuals on SSDI who return to work. In addition to these health coverage innovations, the bill provides a user-friendly, public-private approach to job placement. Because of a new, innovative payment system, vocational rehabilitation agencies will be rewarded for helping people remain on the job. Mr. President, this combination of health care and job assistance will help disabled Americans succeed in the workplace. Tremendous progress has been made on many fronts in the 8 years following the passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act. However, there are still serious obstacles standing in the way of employment for individuals with disabilities. Unofrtunately, federal programs for individuals with disabilities too often discourage work. The most important barrier to employment identified by disabled individuals is the fear of losing health insurance. The unemployment rate among working-age adults with severe disabilities is nearly 75 percent. Many of these individuals would prefer to be working and paying taxes. Unfortunately, Mr. President, the simple fact is that people with disabilities are often presented with a catch-22 between working and losing their Medicaid or Medicare. This is a choice that no one should have to make. But even modest earnings can result in a loss of eligibility for Medicaid or Medicare, and disabled individuals cannot surrender their insurance access without jeopardizing their health. Today, more than 7.5 million disabled Americans receive cash benefits from SSI and SSDI. Disability benefit spending for these two programs totals $73 billion a year. If only 1 percent--or 75,000--of these SSI and SSDI beneficiaries were to become employed, federal savings in disability benefits would total $3.5 billion over the worklife of the beneficiaries. Mr. President, income tax day, April 15, is still fresh in our minds. It is not very often, especially at this time of year, that we hear from millions of Americans eager to become taxpayers. I say we should welcome Americans with disabilities into the ranks of taxpaying citizens. In my own State of Delaware, experts on disability policy have made their support for S. 331 clear. Larry Henderson, Chair of Delaware's Developmental Disabilities Planning Council, testified in support of S. 331 at a Finance Committee hearing. He supports S. 331 ``because it does not penalize persons with disabilities for working in that it allows for continued access to health care.'' For this reason, more than 100 national groups have endorsed the bill, representing veterans, people with disabilities, health care providers, and insurers. Mr. President, on March 4, the Finance Committee marked up and passed S. 331 by a vote of 16 to 2. S. 331 was the first health care bill passed out of our committee this year, and I appreciate the spirit of bipartisan cooperation that made our vote possible. The strong support for S. 331 shown by our committee is also reflected in the full Senate. Mr. President, a total of 75 Senators now sponsor S. 331. Let me say that again--75 Senators have signed on to S. 331. That would be a remarkable total for any bill, let alone a health care proposal. I think S. 331 has been so popular on both sides of the aisle because it is all about helping disabled Americans work if that is what they want to do. It is about helping people reach their potential. It is not about big government--it is about getting government out of the way of individual commitment and creativity. Through my work on S. 331, it has become vividly clear to me that we are all just one tragedy away from confronting disability in our own families. Unfortunately, we cannot prevent all disabilities. But we can prevent making disabled individuals choose between health care and employment. It is time now to act. Mr. President, together with Senators Moynihan, Jeffords, and Kennedy, I have asked that S. 331 be scheduled for a vote before Memorial Day. I ask all my colleagues to join with us on behalf of millions of disabled Americans. With a Senate vote in support of S. 331, we can move another step closer to unleashing the creativity and enthusiasm of millions of Americans with disabilities ready and eager to work. I look forward to seeing S. 331 enacted into law this year.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, this is Arson Awareness Week in our nation. As Chairman of the Congressional Fire Service Caucus. I want to remind all Americans of the blight of arson that kills over 700 innocent victims each year and destroys millions of dollars of property. Additionally, firefighters who have been summoned to extinguish the blaze die needlessly. Arson has many faces. The misguided youth that sets fires for excitement; criminals that use fire in an attempt to cover another crime; persons using fire as a weapon to intimidate; the property owner attempting to solve financial problems by defrauding an insurance company; or the terrorist who uses fire to attack our democracy. No matter what the motive, arson in our society cannot be tolerated. Every level of our law enforcement community fights the war against arson. Local and state fire marshals are often assisted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in conducting investigations to bring the arsonist to justice. The United States Fire Administration in FEMA and the Center for Fire Research at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the Commerce Department are important federal partners in furthering research to learn how arson fires are started and how set fires can be detected. Our National Fire Academy provides training in arson investigation for many state and local law enforcement personnel. But we should not assume that government alone can solve the arson problem. Private enterprise, especially the insurance industry has taken a much higher profile in attacking the arson problem by investigating claims and cooperating with law enforcement personnel. This trend must continue to take the profit out of arson. The insurance industry has also contributed to teaching the public about arson by sponsoring education programs such as Arson Awareness Week. The Fire Administration helps supports Arson Awareness Week by working with the International Association of Arson Investigators. This is the 50th Anniversary of the IAAI. Over seven thousand members worldwide working together to control arson are making a difference. I send my congratulations to the IAAI during Arson Awareness Week. I am particularly proud of the Delaware Chapter of the IAAI. Some of best that Delaware has to offer from the fire service, law enforcement, the insurance industry and the private sector work hard to protect and educate us about arson. As we go about our busy week, let us not forget that we must all work to snuff out the arsonist match.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, this next vote is a milestone for a friend of mine--a distinguished colleague and a leader in this chamber. It represents the ten-thousandth vote cast by Joe Biden, and I would like to take a moment not only to bring it to the attention of our colleagues, but to reflect on a career that has been--and continues to be--a bright legacy of service. To put this vote into perspective, Mr. President, only twenty Senators in history have reached this milestone--only twenty Senators out of the 1,851 who have had the honor of serving in this distinguished body. Each of us who has the honor of representing our state in the Senate understands what a rare privilege it is to cast a vote on this floor. In fact, the first vote we cast ranks among the most memorable moment in our lives--a moment not to be forgotten. I'm sure that when Joe cast his first vote on January 23, 1973--over twenty-five years ago--he could not have foreseen this moment. Through the years, he has achieved many distinguished honors. He has gained national stature, as a candidate for President. He has established himself as a foremost expert on judicial and foreign policy matters. And though I know that we often differ philosophically, I can say that each vote Joe has cast, his focus has been on doing what's best for Delaware and our Nation, at large. Joe, on this special occasion, I salute you. Ten thousand votes speak volumes about a life dedicated to public service. On behalf of our colleagues I congratulate you. And on behalf of our friends and neighbors in Delaware I thank you. For me, it has been an honor, a pleasure, and a privilege to serve these many years with Senator Biden. He always does what he thinks is in the best interests of our country and our people of Delaware. I am proud to count him a friend.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the measure now before the Senate. This bill would create new budget procedures to prevent the spending of any surpluses attributed to Social Security, other than for reducing the public debt or for Social Security reform. Although this bill is well intended, in my view the bill is unlikely to accomplish its objectives and, worse, may have negative, unintended consequences. Before describing specific objections, let me first commend Senator Domenici for his leadership on the budget resolution and his commitment to Social Security. The FY 2000 budget resolution that passed Congress last week sets aside every penny of every dollar of the $1.8 trillion in Social Security surpluses expected over the next 10 years. This measure demonstrates unequivocally our commitment to protecting Social Security and to restoring confidence and accountability in Social Security's financing. On the other hand, the President's budget would spend $158 billion of the Social Security surpluses over the next 5 years, and even more thereafter. The differences between the President's budget plan and Congress's could not be more clear. Mr. President, the bill now before the Senate intends to provide additional protections against spending so-called ``off budget'' surpluses, by, among other things, creating a new public debt limit. In my view, the bill has serious substantive problems. The simple fact is that if Congress does not authorize spending, money cannot be spent. Debt is issued solely to pay for spending Congress authorizes. Indeed, Congress delegated its exclusive constitutional authority to borrow money on the credit of the United States in 1917 to the Treasury Department. Prior to 1917, Congress individually authorized each debt issue, specifying interest rates and maturity Over the years, debt ceilings have made little difference in preventing spending or deficits. But, as those of us who have been involved with debt ceiling legislation know too well, the need to raise the debt ceiling can and has often created a sense of crisis. Indeed, this bill could hamper the Federal government from paying its bills in a timely manner; injure the Federal government's credit standing; and limit the Treasury's flexibility to manage the debt in the most efficient manner. Having said that, the legislation before us does attempt to address some of these problems. For example, the bill contains exceptions for emergency spending, recession, and war. However, these exceptions seem to undo the very purposes of the bill, without providing the flexibility needed to properly manage the debt. Moreover, the language of the bill ensuring the timely payment of Social Security benefits should be strengthened. The best solution is to prevent spending, not to undo spending with a new type of debt limit. Indeed, the whole point of the 1974 Congressional Budget Act, and subsequent budget process legislation, has been to provide an organized, disciplined framework for consideration of the nation's budget and of public spending. If the current budget procedures are not adequate to prevent spending authorizations, new remedies should be devised without creating a new type of debt limit. I received a letter from Treasury Secretary Rubin which addresses the pending amendment. In this letter Secretary Rubin raises concern that the amendment, if enacted, could actually jeopardize the payment of Social Security benefits. This concerns me as well. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the letter from the Treasury Secretary in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, let me turn now to one other issue before closing--the importance of prompt action on Social Security reform. The bill before us is at best intended to be a stopgap measure until Social Security reform is accomplished. Social Security has long-term financial problems, which the President and Congress must address. Indeed, there is broad agreement--in Congress and by the President-- that Social Security reform is better done sooner than later. I strongly agree, although any action will require Presidential leadership and a bipartisan consensus in Congress. Exhibit 1 Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC, April 21, 1999. Hon. William Roth, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Bill: This letter transmits an analysis of the Social Security Surplus Preservation and Debt Reducation Act, the amendment offered by Chairman Domenici and Senators Abraham and Ashcroft to S. 557, which is currently being debated on the Senate floor. This Act would create new statutory limits on debt held by the public in addition to the existing ceiling on the total debt held by the public and the Federal trust funds. Our analysis indicates that this provision could preclude the United States from meeting its financial obligations to repay maturing debt and to make benefit payments--including Social Security checks--and could also worsen a future economic downturn. Let me refer you to my earlier letter as I will not repeat here all of the concerns I have with this proposal. For all of the reasons I mention there, I would recommend to the President that he veto this Act if it were presented to him for his signature. It is still my view and the view of the Administration that fiscal restraint is best exercised through the tools of the budget process. Debt limits should not be used as an additional means of imposing restraint. By the time a debt limit is reached the Government is already obligated to make payments and must have enough money to meet its obligations. These proposed new debt limits, despite the changes made, could run the risk of precipitating a debt crisis in the future. The proposal makes only limited exceptions for unanticipated developments on the non-Social Security side of the budget. However, the potential for forecast error is great even for estimates made for one year in the future, let alone for ten years. Projections of future budget surpluses are made using hundreds of assumptions, any of which is subject to error. Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) studied the errors in its own five-year estimates and concluded that, based on their average deviation, the annual surplus estimate for 2004 could vary by $250 billion. Much smaller forecast errors could cause these new debt limits to be reached. The amendment's shift of the effective date from October 1 to May 1 may provide some degree of cushion but it does not eliminate the risk that the debt limit could be reached in the normal course of business. It reduces the debt limit just after the large revenue bulge in April. However, the size of the cushion and the impact of the timing shift can be far smaller than the deviations from surplus projections described above. The amendment could run the risk of worsening an economic downturn. The debt limit would be suspended following two consecutive quarters of real GDP growth below one percent. However, an economic slowdown of any duration that did not result in real growth of less than one percent for two consecutive quarters could increase spending and reduce receipts--and both CBO and OMB estimates indicate that such a moderate slowdown could require the borrowing of hundreds of billions of dollars over a period of just a few years. Absent a super-majority vote to raise the debt limit, Congress would need to reduce other spending or raise taxes. Either cutting spending or raising taxes in a slowing economy could aggravate the economic slowdown and substantially raise the risk of a significant recession. In addition, there would be a lag of at least seven months from the onset of a recession to the time that the statistics were available to demonstrate two consecutive quarters of real growth of less than one percent. During these seven or more months, as in the first case, revenues would likely decline and outlays increase necessitating that Congress either reduce other spending or raise taxes. In both cases, the tax increases and spending cuts could turn out to be inadequate to satisfy all existing payment obligations and to keep the debt under the limit, and the debt-limit crisis could worsen. In addition, the Act does not guarantee that Social Security benefits will be paid as scheduled in the event that the debt ceiling were reached. The Act requires the Treasury Secretary to give priority to the payment of Social Security benefits but, if the Treasury could no longer borrow any money, there might not be enough cash to pay all Social Security benefits due on a given day. We believe that all obligations of the Federal government should be honored. We do not believe that prioritizing payments by program is a sound way to approach the government's affairs (e.g., giving Social Security payments precedence over tax refunds or other benefits, such as those for veterans). In addition, this Act does not indicate how this complex prioritization process should be implemented, no system currently exists to do so, and any such system would be impractical. Clearly, there could be very serious risks to Social Security and other benefits and to the credit worthiness of the United States if this Act were enacted into law. To ensure fiscal discipline, the Administration recommends instead that the pay-go rules and the discretionary spending caps in current law be extended beyond FY 2002. These tools of fiscal discipline--which do not rely on debt limits--have been highly effective since they were adopted in 1990 on a bipartisan basis. I urge the Congress to consider these provisions--rather than new debt ceilings--as the best choice for maintaining our hard-won fiscal discipline. Sincerely, Robert E. Rubin.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, in 1960 President Dwight Eisenhower had the wisdom to set aside a portion of America's Arctic for the benefit and enjoyment of future generations. His Arctic National Wildlife Refuge protected the highest peaks and glaciers of the Brooks Range, North America's two largest and most northerly alpine lakes, and nearly 200 different wildlife species, including polar bears, grizzlies, wolves, caribou, and millions of migratory birds. Eisenhower's Secretary of Interior Fred Seaton called the new Arctic Range, ``one of the most magnificent wildlife and wilderness areas in North America . . . a wilderness experience not duplicated elsewhere. With this in mind, I reintroduce legislation today, Earth Day 1999, that designates the coastal plain of Alaska as wilderness area. At the moment this area is a national wildlife refuge--one of our most beautiful and last frontiers. This legislation, the Arctic National Refuge Wilderness Act of 1999, would forever safeguard this great national treasure from oil exploration and development. And I can't stress how important this is. The Alaskan wilderness area is not only a critical part of our Earth's ecosystem--the last remaining region where the complete spectrum of arctic and subarctic ecosystems comes together--but it is a vital part of our national consciousness. It is a place we can cherish and visit for our soul's good. The Alaskan wilderness is a place of outstanding wildlife, wilderness and recreation, a land dotted by beautiful forests, dramatic peaks and glaciers, gentle foothills and undulating tundra. It is untamed--rich with caribou, polar bear, grizzly, wolves, musk oxen, Dall sheep, moose, and hundreds of thousands of birds--snow geese, tundra swans, black brant, and more. Birds from the Arctic Refuge fly to or through every state in the continental U.S. In all, Mr. President, about 165 species use the coastal plain. It is an area of intense wildlife activity. Animals give birth, nurse and feed their young, and set about the critical business of fueling up for winters of unspeakable severity. The fact is Mr. President, there are parts of this Earth where it is good that man can come only as a visitor. These are the pristine lands that belong to all of us. And perhaps most importantly, these are the lands that belong to our future. Considering the many reasons why this bill is so important, I came across the words of the great Western writer, Wallace Stegner. Referring to the land we are trying to protect with this legislation, he wrote that it is `the most splendid part of the American habitat; it is also the most fragile.' And we cannot enter `it carrying habits that [are] inappropriate and expectations that [are] surely excessive.' What this bill offers--and what we need--is a brand of pragmatic environmentalism, an environmental stewardship that protects our important wilderness areas and precious resources, while carefully and judiciously weighing the short-term desires or our country against its long-term needs. Together, we need to embrace environmental policies that are workable and pragmatic, policies based on the desire to make the world a better place for us and for future generations. I believe a strong economy, liberty, and progress are possible only when we have a healthy planet-- only when resources are managed through wise stewardship--only when an environmental ethic thrives among nations--and only when people have frontiers that are untrammeled and able to host their fondest dreams. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, in 1960 President Dwight Eisenhower had the wisdom to set aside a portion of America's Arctic for the benefit and enjoyment of future generations. His Arctic National Wildlife Refuge protected the highest peaks and glaciers of the Brooks Range, North America's two largest and most northerly alpine lakes, and nearly 200 different wildlife species, including polar bears, grizzlies, wolves, caribou, and millions of migratory birds. Eisenhower's Secretary of Interior Fred Seaton called the new Arctic Range, ``one of the most magnificent wildlife and wilderness areas in North America . . . a wilderness experience not duplicated elsewhere. With this in mind, I reintroduce legislation today, Earth Day 1999, that designates the coastal plain of Alaska as wilderness area. At the moment this area is a national wildlife refuge--one of our most beautiful and last frontiers. This legislation, the Arctic National Refuge Wilderness Act of 1999, would forever safeguard this great national treasure from oil exploration and development. And I can't stress how important this is. The Alaskan wilderness area is not only a critical part of our Earth's ecosystem--the last remaining region where the complete spectrum of arctic and subarctic ecosystems comes together--but it is a vital part of our national consciousness. It is a place we can cherish and visit for our soul's good. The Alaskan wilderness is a place of outstanding wildlife, wilderness and recreation, a land dotted by beautiful forests, dramatic peaks and glaciers, gentle foothills and undulating tundra. It is untamed--rich with caribou, polar bear, grizzly, wolves, musk oxen, Dall sheep, moose, and hundreds of thousands of birds--snow geese, tundra swans, black brant, and more. Birds from the Arctic Refuge fly to or through every state in the continental U.S. In all, Mr. President, about 165 species use the coastal plain. It is an area of intense wildlife activity. Animals give birth, nurse and feed their young, and set about the critical business of fueling up for winters of unspeakable severity. The fact is Mr. President, there are parts of this Earth where it is good that man can come only as a visitor. These are the pristine lands that belong to all of us. And perhaps most importantly, these are the lands that belong to our future. Considering the many reasons why this bill is so important, I came across the words of the great Western writer, Wallace Stegner. Referring to the land we are trying to protect with this legislation, he wrote that it is `the most splendid part of the American habitat; it is also the most fragile.' And we cannot enter `it carrying habits that [are] inappropriate and expectations that [are] surely excessive.' What this bill offers--and what we need--is a brand of pragmatic environmentalism, an environmental stewardship that protects our important wilderness areas and precious resources, while carefully and judiciously weighing the short-term desires or our country against its long-term needs. Together, we need to embrace environmental policies that are workable and pragmatic, policies based on the desire to make the world a better place for us and for future generations. I believe a strong economy, liberty, and progress are possible only when we have a healthy planet-- only when resources are managed through wise stewardship--only when an environmental ethic thrives among nations--and only when people have frontiers that are untrammeled and able to host their fondest dreams. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I wish to briefly comment on the resolution that my colleague from Indiana and I, the majority leader, and others have just introduced. This weekend the NATO Alliance will hold a summit meeting here in Washington. That summit will be dominated by the conflict in Kosovo, and that is to be expected as so much is at stake. Should the Alliance emerge defeated from this conflict, it would signal that dictatorship and atrocity can lead to political survival in post-Cold War Europe. NATO's defeat by a bloody regime that controls no more territory than the state of Kentucky would signal NATO's irrelevance. It would mark the decay of the transatlantic order of democracy, human rights, and security that NATO spent the last five decades defending and promoting. For these grave reasons, the Kosovo crisis underscores how vital NATO is today to the values and interests we share with our European allies. At stake in this conflict is more than Balkan peace and stability, but also the prospects of a transatlantic partnership based on a Europe that is undivided, democratic, and secure. However significant and immediate the Kosovo issue may be, NATO's leaders cannot allow it to obscure two other critical issues that will significantly shape NATO's future as the cornerstone of Euro-Atlantic security. These are the revisions to NATO's Strategic Concept the Alliance intends to codify at this summit and the next phase of NATO enlargement. Mr. President, NATO's Strategic Concept is a public document that defines the threats and opportunities that lie before the Alliance's interests and values. It defines the political and military roles and missions the Alliance must undertake to protect and promote those interests and values. From this important document are derived the resources Alliance members commit to the implementation of this strategy. It is a critically important document, one whose revision must be taken with great care. Two Strategic Concept issues that right now appear unresolved prior to this summit and that should be of great concern to us are NATO's relationship with the United Nations and the future of the European Security and Defense Identity (ESDI). There are still today Allies who wish to require NATO to attain a UN or a OSCE mandate prior to undertaking out-of-area military actions. I cannot think of a more destructive poison pill for the Alliance. A UN mandate would give non-NATO countries, such as Russia and China, a veto over Alliance decisions. We must not forget that NATO was established in 1949 to overcome the inability of the United Nations to act decisively in the face of danger, threats, and conflagration. We need only to look back to the UN's role in the former Yugoslavia this decide to be reminded of the grave limitations of this institution. If there is one thing that new Strategic Concept must not do, it is to constrict NATO freedom to act by subjecting it to the decisions of other organizations. NATO must preserve its freedom to act. Second, the Alliance's new Strategic Concept must continue the process toward a viable ESDI within the framework of the Washington Treaty. Allied leaders should focus on developing better European military capabilities within NATO. The resolution we introduce today underscores this point by calling upon our European Allies to acquire better capability to ``rapidly deploy forces over long distances, sustain operations for extended periods of time and operate jointly with the United States in high intensity conflicts.'' The Alliance must not only be able to project power decisively within and outside NATO borders; it must be able to do so in a manner that features transatlantic parity in power projection capabilities. Mr. President, let me add one more point on this matter. Over the last half decade NATO has restructured its command structure to afford it greater operational flexibility. The establishment of Combined Joint Task Forces (CJTF), one of the most important reforms, will enable European Allies to utilize Alliance assets for operations of a distincity European character. Europe's key to maximizing the potential of these reforms is the development of better military capabilities. It is through capability--not rhetoric--that our Allies can put a final end to the often acrimonious debates over burden-sharing, and at the same time allow them to more effectively address security challenges of distincity European concern. Finally, Mr. President, the issue of NATO enlargement. How the Washington Summit manages the next phase of enlargement will determine whether this meeting strengthens or undermines the dream for a Europe that is free, secure, and undivided. If the process of NATO enlargement is clearly advanced, the summit will reinforce the prospects for enduring peace and stability in post-Cold War Europe. Article Ten of the Washington Treaty, which established the NATO Alliance in 1949, articulates the Alliance's vision of a united Europe. It states that NATO is open to ``any other European state in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area.'' In 1995 the Alliance defined through its Study on Enlargement the political, military, and foreign policy guidelines to direct enlargement in the post-Cold War era. These include a commitment to democracy, the resolution of disputes with neighbors, and the ability to contribute to the Alliance's roles and missions, including collective defense. Based on these guidelines, Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary were invited to join the Alliance. Their accession on March 12 strengthened the Alliance and marked the first step in the elimination of the divisive and destablizing vestiges, not only of the Cold War, but of the era preceding World War II. The Washington Summit must not only celebrate the first round of NATO enlargement, it must decisively press the process forward. Toward that end, I believe that NATO should invite Solvenia and any other qualified NATO European applicant to accession negotiations. Recently, at my request, the Congressional Research Service examined the nine European states that have applied for NATO membership. This study clearly revealed that Slovenia not only meets NATO's own guidelines, it surpasses some of the economic and military standards set by the Alliance's three newest members. An invitation to Slovenia would demonstrate to the other democracies of Central Europe that NATO remains genuinely committed to its ``Open Door Policy''--proof that would reinforce their commitment to democratic and economic reform and the Alliance's Partnership for Peace program. Above all, it would help ensure that enlargement becomes a continuous, not a convulsive, process. The momentum generated by the first round of enlargement would be sustained. In contrast, if enlargement is subject to pauses of undefined and indefinite duration, each succeeding round will be more difficult to initiate and complete. Enlargement would less likely be seen and appreciated as a normal dynamic of post-Cold War Europe. In the absence of new invitations at the Summit, it will be a challenge for NATO to sustain the credibility of its Open Door Policy. The Alliance must not step back to the theme of its 1994 Summit in Brussels: ``NATO enlargement is not a matter of if, but when.'' This April, such an open-ended ``when'' would ring especially hollow. For this reason, NATO cannot simply retierate longstanding promises; it must yield a process. Herein lies an important recommendation presented by our resolution on the issue of NATO enlargement. It calls upon Alliance leaders to instruct the NATO International Staff to conduct a comprehensive and transparent review of the nine applicant countries in terms of the guidelines articulated in its 1995 study. (Such a review should not be confused with discrete annual reviews currently being considered for each applicant.) This comprehensive review should be presented, with recommendations, to a North Atlantic Council meeting of ministers or heads of state no later than May 2000. While this review should complement new NATO invitations, even standing alone it offers the following advantages: The Alliance would demonstrate that it is actively engaged in an ongoing enlargement process. It would deflect suspicions that the Alliance is camouflaging its unwillingness for further enlargement behind the generosity of more financial and material assistance. A review is more than words, it is action. A review would not bind the Alliance to ``automaticity'' in that it does not commit the Alliance to issue new invitations in 2000. The review would, however, probably highlight the fact that one or more applicant countries have met the grade. It would underscore that NATO stands by the guidelines established in the 1995 Study on Enlargement. That would encourage the applicant states to continue, if not accelerate, the democratic, military, and economic reforms and regional cooperation requisite for NATO membership. NATO enlargement must also be a central component of NATO's new Strategic Concept, the document that will define the Alliance's roles and missions for the next century. It inclusion will not only communicate commitment, it will help institutionalize enlargement as a planning priority of the Alliance. NATO enlargement is not an act of altruism; it is an act of self- interest. It is a process motivated by the dream of an undivided Europe, the stability that would come to the Euro-Atlantic community, and the capabilities new members would yield the Alliance. It is a policy guided by objective political, economic and military criteria. Each of these enlargement steps outlined above, an invitation to Slovenia, a comprehensive review process, and an emphasis in the Alliance's game plan for the future, will ensure that the Washington Summit is remembered for revitalizing the dream of a Europe, whole, free, and undivided. Mr. President, history will judge this week's NATO Summit not only for how it handles the crisis in Kovoso, but also for the strategy that it lays out for its future. Kosovo, the new Strategic Concept, and enlargement present a challenging agenda at a very trying time. Yet, I remain confident this Alliance has the potential to address each of these issues in a manner that will ensure that NATO becomes an even more capable and effective promoter of a transatlantic partnership that features a strong, undivided and democratic Europe. It is toward this vision that we introduce this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to lend their support.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation that would amend section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code to provide a tax credit to biomass energy facilities that use poultry litter as a fuel for generating electricity. I am pleased to report that my bill has received even more cosponsors than when it was introduced in the 105th Congress. Fourteen of my colleagues are joining me as original cosponsors. They include Senators Jeffords, Coverdell, Helms, Robb, Mikulski, Biden, Sessions, Hutchinson, Sarbanes, Leahy, Grams, Shelby, McConnell, and Harkin. Mr. President, I am bullish on poultry's future in America. It is hard not to be with worldwide poultry consumption growing at double- digit rates. In the United States, poultry production has tripled since 1975. We now produce almost 8 billion chickens a year to feed the growing worldwide demand. In particular, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia produce some of the world's finest poultry. Just last year Delmarva poultry farmers produced over 600 million chickens. Our poultry farmers are among the most productive and efficient in the world. As the amount of chickens we produce as a nation has grown, so too has the need to find creative means for disposing of poultry manure. Due to environmental pressures, spreading manure on land is no longer an option in some areas for our rapidly growing poultry industry. In those areas, the nutrient runoff from the manure has been identified as a contributing factor in surface and groundwater pollution. Addressing these water quality problems will require a range of innovative approaches. One part of the solution may be to use poultry manure to generate electricity. The United Kingdom has two utility plants that use poultry manure to generate electricity. These two poultry power plants will, when combined with a third scheduled to open soon, burn 50 percent of the UK's total volume of chicken manure. The electricity generated by these plants will supply enough power for 37,000 homes. These plants have the support of both the poultry industry and the international environmental community. The way this system works is simple. Power stations buy poultry manure from surrounding poultry farmers and transport it to the power station. At the station the manure is burned in a furnace at high temperatures, heating water in a boiler to produce steam which drives a turbine linked to a generator. The electricity is then transferred to the local electricity grid for use by commercial and residential customers. There are no waste products created through this process. Instead, a valuable by-product emerges in the form of a nitrogen-free ash, which is marketed as an environmentally friendly fertilizer. The legislation I am introducing today will provide a tax credit to energy facilities that use poultry manure as a fuel to generate electricity. It will build on concepts in the Tax Code that provide incentives for innovative alternative energy production. This legislation will provide incentives for electricity generation that will not only help dispose of poultry manure, but will also supply our Nation's farmers with a clean fertilizer free of nitrates. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring my bill, the Poultry Electric Energy Power Act. It is important for future generations that we continue to explore innovative alternative technologies that will help protect our environment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Delaware, Senator Biden, and on behalf of Senator Thurmond, Senator Helms, Senator Domenici, Senator Specter, Senator Stevens, and 15 other of our colleagues, to reintroduce a resolution whose intent to redress a grave injustice, one that haunts us from the tribulations of World War II. The matter of which I speak concerns the reputations of two of the most accomplished officers who served in Pacific theater during that war: Admiral Husband Kimmel and General Walter Short. They were the two senior commanders of U.S. military forces deployed in the Pacific at the time of the disastrous surprise December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. In the immediate aftermath of the attack they were unfairly and publicly charged with dereliction of duty and blamed as singularly responsible for the success of that attack. In short, as we all know today, they were scapegoated. What is most unforgivable is that after the end of World War II, this scapegoating was given a near permanent veneer when the President of the United States declined to advance Admiral Kimmel and General Short on the retired list to their highest ranks of wartime command--an honor that was given to every other senior commander who served in wartime positions above his regular grade. That decision to exclude only these two officers was made despite the fact that wartime investigations had already exonerated those commanders of the dereliction of duty charge and criticized the War and Navy Departments for failings that contributed to the success of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Mr. President, let me repeat this fact: Admiral Kimmel and General Short were the only two flag and general rank officers from World War II excluded from advancement on the military's retired list. That fact alone perpetuates the myth that Admiral Kimmel and General Short were derelict in their duty and singularly responsible for the success of the attack on Pearl Harbor. The scapegoating of Admiral Kimmel and General Short was one of the great injustices that occurred within our own ranks during World War II. The motivation behind our resolution today is to recognize and correct this injustice. Our resolution calls upon the President of the United States posthumously to advance on the retirement lists Admiral Kimmel and General Short to the grades of this highest wartime commands. In adopting this resolution, the Senate would communicate its recognition of the injustice done to them and call upon the President to take corrective action. Such a statement by the Senate would do much to remove the stigma of blame that so unfairly burdens the reputations of these two officers. It is a correction consistent with our military's tradition of honor, and it is one long overdue. Mr. President, the facts that constitute the case of Admiral Kimmel and General Short have been remarkably documented. Since the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, there have been no less than nine official governmental investigations and reports, and one inquiry conducted by a special Joint Congressional Committee. Perhaps the most flawed, and unfortunately most influential investigation, was that of the Roberts Commission. Less than 6 weeks after the Pearl Harbor attack, in a hastily prepared report to the President, the commission accused Kimmel and Short of dereliction of duty--a charge that was immediately and highly publicized. Adm. William Harrison Standley, who served as a member of this Commission, later disavowed its report, stating that Admiral Kimmel and General Short were ``martyred'' and ``if they had been brought to trial, they would have been cleared of the charge.'' Later, Adm. J.O. Richardson, who was Admiral Kimmel's predecessor as Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet, wrote: In the impression that the Roberts Commission created in the minds of the American people, and in the way it was drawn up for that specific purpose, I believe that the report of the Roberts Commission was the most unfair, unjust, and deceptively dishonest document ever printed by the Government Printing Office. Subsequent investigations provided clear evidence that Admiral Kimmel and General Short were unfairly singled out for blame. These reports include those presented by a 1944 Navy Court of Inquiry, the 1944 Army Pearl Harbor Board of Investigation, a 1946 Joint Congressional Committee, and more recently a 1991 Army Board for the Correction of Military Records and report prepared by the Department of Defense in 1995. The findings of these official reports can be summarized as four principal points. First, there is ample evidence that the Hawaiian commanders were not provided vital intelligence that they needed, and that was available in Washington prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Their senior commanders had critical information about Japanese intentions, plans, and actions, but neighter passed this on nor took issue nor attempted to correct the disposition of forces under Kimmel's and Short's commands in response to the information they attained. Second, the disposition of forces in Hawaii were proper and consistent with the information made available to Admiral Kimmel and General Short. In my review of this case, I was most struck by the honor and integrity demonstrated by Gen. George Marshall who was Army Chief of Staff at the time of the attack. On November 27, 1941, General Short interpreted a vaguely written war warning message sent from the high command in Washington as suggesting the need to defend against sabotage. Consequently, he concentrated his aircraft away from perimeter roads to protect them, thus inadvertently increasing their vulnerability to air attack. When he reported his preparations to the General Staff in Washington, the General Staff took no steps to clarify the reality of the situation. In 1946 before a Joint Congressional Committee investigating the Pearl Harbor disaster General Marshall testified that he was responsible for ensuring the proper disposition of General Short's forces. He acknowledged that he must have received General Short's report, which would have been his opportunity to issue a corrective message, and that he failed to do so. Mr. President, General Marshall's integrity and sense of responsibility is a model for all of us. I only wish it had been able to have greater influence over the case of Admiral Kimmel and General Short. A third theme of these investigations concerned the failure of the Department of War and the Department of the Navy to properly manage the flow of intelligence. The Dorn Report completed in 1995 for the Deputy Secretary of Defense at the request of Senator Thurmond, stated that the handling of intelligence in Washington during the time leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor was characterized by, among other faults, ineptitude, limited coordination, ambiguous language, and lack of clarification and followup. The bottom line is that poor command decisions and inefficient management structures and procedures blocked the flow of essential intelligence from Washington to the Hawaiian commanders. The fourth and most important theme that permeates the aforementioned reports is that blame for the disaster at Pearl Harbor cannot be placed only upon the Hawaiian commanders. Some of these reports completely absolved these two officers. While others found them to have made errors in judgment, all the reports subsequent to the Roberts Commission cleared Admiral Kimmel and General Short of the charge of dereliction of duty and underscored the rollout of a broad failure by the entire chain of command. And, Mr. President, all those reports identified significant failures and shortcomings of the senior authorities in Washington that contributed significantly--if not predominantly--to the success of the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. The Dorn Report put it best, stating that ``responsibility for the Pearl Harbor disaster should not fall solely on the shoulders of Admiral Kimmel and General Short; it should be broadly shared.'' Mr. President, let me add one poignant fact about two of these investigations. The conclusions of the 1944 Naval Court of Inquiry and the Army Pearl Harbor Board--that Kimmel's and Short's forces had been properly disposed according to the information available to them and that their superiors had failed to share important intelligence--were kept secret on the grounds that citing the existence of this intelligence would have been detrimental to the war effort. Be that as it may, there is no longer any reason to perpetuate the cruel myth that Kimmel and Short were singularly responsible for the disaster at Pearl Harbor. To do so is not only unfair, it tarnishes our Nation's military honor. For reasons unexplainable to me, this scapegoating of Admiral Kimmel and General Short has survived the cleansing tides of history. This issue of fairness and justice has been raised not only by General Short and Admiral Kimmel and their surviving families today, but also by numerous senior officers and public organizations around the country. Mr. President, allow me to submit for the Record a letter endorsing our resolution from five living former naval officers who served at the very pinnacle of military responsibility. They are former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Thomas H. Moorer and Adm. William J. Crowe; and former Chiefs of Naval Operations Adm. J.L. Holloway III, Adm. Elmo R. Zumwalt, and Adm. Carlisle A.H. Trost. I also submit a similar letter from Senator Robert Dole, one of our most distinguished colleagues, who as we all know served heroically in World War II. The efforts of these and other officers have been complemented by the initiatives of many public organizations who have called for posthumous advancement of Kimmel and Short. I submit for the Record a copy of the VFW's Resolution Number 441 passed last August calling for the advancement of Admiral Kimmel and General Short. Mr. President, Admiral Kimmel and General Short remain unjustly stigmatized by our Nation's failure to treat them in the same manner with which we treated their peers. To redress this wrong would be fully consistent with this Nation's sense of justice. As I said earlier, after 58 years, this correction is long overdue. The message of our joint resolution is about justice, equity, and honor. Its purpose is to redress an historic wrong, to ensure that these two officers are treated fairly and with the dignity and honor they deserve, and to ensure that justice and fairness fully permeate the memory and lessons learned from the catastrophe at Pearl Harbor. In the largest sense, passage of this resolution will restore the honor of the United States in this issue. I urge my colleagues to support this joint resolution. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the joint resolution and the documents to which I have referred.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Roth, Mr. Biden and Mr. Kennedy, pertaining to the introduction of S.J. Res. 19 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') (The remarks of Mr. Roth and Mr. Grams pertaining to the introduction of S. 815 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, as we turn our attention to the Budget Resolution, pondering the course government is going to take--the philosophy and policies that are going to lead us into a new millennium--I want my colleagues to consider that rather than a time for acrimony and partisan politics, this is a time of great opportunity. In fact, few times in history have been so rich with the opportunities that are before us--opportunities to set a future where the needs of taxpayers, families, students, and communities come before the insatiable appetite of the federal government. Because of policies we began to implement in the early 1980s, we are the beneficiaries of the longest peacetime economic expansion in history. Our efforts to support the home--to provide incentives to save and invest--as well as our work to encourage risk-taking businessmen and - women, researchers and developers, our agricultural and educational communities--these efforts have paid tremendous dividends. Now the question, as we face the final hours of the 20th century, is simple: Do we move forward, embracing economic policies that are proven to increase prosperity and economic opportunity for all Americans, or do we abandon them for proposals that will raise taxes on the most vulnerable among us, proposals that will fill government coffers, swell federal programs, and risk shutting down the tremendous engine of growth that we have successfully created? It seems that the answer to this question is clear, and therefore I rise today to support a Sense of the Senate amendment to the Budget Resolution--a Sense of the Senate amendment that is bipartisan in nature--one that makes it clear that in the choice between a tax cut, as authorized in the resolution, or a tax increase, as provided in the Administration's budget, we are resolved and choose to be consistent as to the direction we want to go. Today the federal government is collecting more taxes than ever before. Because of our entrepreneurs, our farmers, laborers, and families preparing for the future, we are witnessing strong economic growth, and this has been very beneficial for the government's income. These individuals have been encouraged by our efforts to dramatically cut taxes in the 1980s, to create incentives for saving and investing in the 1990s, and by our work to reduce government interference in their lives. Unfortunately, and despite the fact that government is collecting more revenue than ever, the Administration's budget reverses this important trend. It represents another in a series of large tax increases this Administration has tried to impose on Americans. In fact, this proposal is a net tax increase of $50 billion over five years and $90 billion over ten years. It is not a targeted tax cut as its proponents claim. Rather, it is a tax increase that dramatically hits lower-income Americans the hardest. For example, under the Administration's budget, taxpayers with incomes of $25,000 and under will bear almost 40 percent of the net tax increase. Taxpayers with incomes of $75,000 and under will bear over 75 percent of the burden. One might ask, with all the talk about targeted tax breaks in the Administration's budget, how can it be a tax increase on America's most vulnerable. The simple answer is that the Administration's budget relies to a great degree on a 55 cents per pack cigarette tax increase. That tax increase, which largely goes for new spending, far outweighs any tax cutting provisions in the budget, and it hits lower-income Americans the hardest. On the other hand, Mr. President, the budget resolution proposed by Senator Domenici does not unfairly penalize one group of Americans. In fact it does not penalize any group. Rather, it provides the Senate Finance Committee with the authority to cut taxes, not increase them. And it allows us to cut taxes in a way that will continue to energize the economic growth our nation is enjoying. This is what America needs as we look to the opportunities before us. I reject any argument that tries to raise the old worn-out issue of class warfare--those who might try to suggest that this resolution will provide tax cuts for the rich. First, I reject it because this resolution does not actually cut taxes, but only authorizes the Finance Committee to proceed to cut taxes. And second, I reject it because the kind of across-the-board tax cuts that are being discussed are just that --fairly applied across-the-board tax cuts that go to everyone. They are just like the tax cuts that President Kennedy implemented in the 1960s and the tax cuts that President Reagan implemented in the 1980s. On both occasions these bipartisan tax cuts led to record- setting economic growth, so not only were they fairly applied, but they benefitted everyone. Mr. President, I also reject the argument that the federal revenue windfall, or budget surplus, will be used by the Administration to retire the debt. For years, there were many among us who argued that tax increases were needed to reduce deficit spending and retire the debt. On occasion, they prevailed and taxes were raised, but then something interesting happened. Deficit spending did not stop, the debt was not retired. The increased taxes actually placed a damper on the economy, and the government spent more than $1.50 for every $1.00 it increased taxes. In other words, the government actually taxed itself into higher deficit spending. It wasn't until Congress insisted on holding the line on spending that the growing economy actually brought about a balanced budget. According to a new study by the Joint Economic Committee, in the post-war period, sixty cents of every dollar of surplus taken into government coffers has been spent by government within a year. Does anyone doubt the taxpayer overpayments that are now contributing to surplus revenue will not be spent by future Congresses? Of course they will. The way to reduce the debt is to keep the economy growing--to keep an environment of opportunity available to all Americans. And the way to keep the economy growing is to cut taxes and minimize government interference in the lives of Americans. This is the message of the Grams Sense of the Senate amendment. It reaffirms support for the tax cut authorized under the resolution offered by Senator Domenici. The tax cut provided in that resolution is $142 billion over five years and $778 billion over ten. This resolution will empower the Finance Committee, Republicans and Democrats, to work together and provide comprehensive tax relief. The Finance Committee can provide across-the-board tax relief, over the long-term--relief that is simple, fair, and meaningful to all taxpayers. With the authority given us by this resolution, the Finance Committee can provide tax relief in the short term for many good purposes--purposes supported by Republicans and Democrats alike. For example, we could enhance retirement security. By this I mean improving small business pension plans, making IRAs more accessible, and simplifying employer 401(k) plans. Also, we should address the needs of women returning to the workforce. Every worker has a stake in a better retirement that these incentives could provide. Second, we could enhance family tax relief. For instance, we could ensure that the $500 per child tax credit, dependent care tax credit, and education credits are available to middle income families by exempting these credits from the alternative minimum tax (``AMT''). If we do not provide these exemptions, millions of families could be adversely affected. In addition, the Budget Committee, on a bipartisan basis, has emphasized the importance of providing marriage penalty relief. Third, we could do more to correct our abysmal national savings rate. Chairman Alan Greenspan says this is the number one economic problem confronting America. To this end, in addition to the retirement plan and IRA expansion mentioned above, we could do something for small savers. For instance, we could simplify the tax system by providing an exclusion for small savers of $200 for singles and $400 for married couples. This bipartisan tax cut would benefit more than 60 million taxpayers. It would also allow up to 11 million Americans to file the 1040 EZ-- which is the simpliest federal tax form there is. Fourth, we could provide greater tax relief to improve educational opportunities for students and their families. We could provide incentives for families and students to seek higher education and avoid large debt burdens. For instance, nearly every state has a prepaid college tuition plan, and those plans could be made tax-free under a bipartisan proposal. Fifth, we could address the expiring provisions in the current tax code, and we could look at real tax code simplification. The Finance Committee could eliminate needless complexity that results from income limits, phaseouts, and the alternative minimum tax. Again, these are bipartisan objectives. And finally, Mr. President, we could continue to push for proper taxpayer protections. Reform of the IRS is in its infant stages. Elimination of unjust penalties and interest scores as revenue loss. In order to continue meaningful reform of the Internal Revenue Service, we must realize that our efforts will be scored as revenue losses and we must consequently address them in the context of tax cuts. This Sense of the Senate amendment makes clear that without the authority provided in the budget resolution, the Finance Committee will not be able to provide significant tax relief--we will not be able to address these important bi-partisan issues and fix problems in the current code. The resolution will allow us to move forward. And let me conclude by explaining how important it is that we move forward. Working together, we have delivered on a bold promise to the American people--the promise of a balanced budget and a dynamic economy where jobs, opportunity, and growth are available to all. Since 1995, we have worked for tax relief for families, savings and investment incentives, health care-related tax relief, relief for small business, and tax simplification. As we moved forward in these areas, not everyone was supportive at first, but they were eventually adopted by Congress and signed into law by the President. Among the items enacted were tax deductible treatment for long-term care insurance and raising the deductible portion of health insurance for self-employed small businesses and farmers. In addition, pension plan reforms, especially for small business, were enacted. In 1997, we pushed for tax relief in the context of a balanced budget. The President agreed to tax relief he had previously vetoed. Among the tax relief proposals enacted was a $500 per child tax credit that is now providing relief to millions of taxpaying families. We also expanded individual retirement accounts and created the new Roth IRA. Millions of taxpayers now have tax-favored savings vehicles open to them. We reduced the top capital gains rate from 28% to 20%. This provision helped unlock investment dollars for the economy and provided relief to farmers and small business. Beyond this, Mr. President, we have worked together to offer education-related tax relief, including educational IRAs, prepaid college tuition plans, an extension of the tax-free treatment of employer-provided educational assistance, and a revival of the student loan interest deduction. We have passed estate tax relief, including relief for small businesses and farmers. And we have succeeded with historic reform of the Internal Revenue Service, including new taxpayer protections regarding the collection activities of the IRS. The Grams Sense of the Senate amendment makes clear that once again, we are at the crossroads on the question of tax relief or tax increases. The Sense of the Senate clarifies that the resolution continues Congress on the same tax relief path begun in 1995. It can be summarized into three points: First, the Administration's budget, though described by its supporters as targeted tax cuts, is a tax increase. Second, if you are serious about tax relief, it must be accommodated in the resolution. The Finance Committee must have the tools to provide meaningful relief. To oppose the tax cut in the resolution is to deny the Finance Committee the tools to do the job. Third, a vote for the tax cut in the resolution is a vote for tax relief that is consistent with tax cuts that have been enacted over the past four years. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Grams Sense of the Senate amendment and I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record a copy of the Tax Foundation's analysis of the Administration's budget, as well as a copy of a revenue table, prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation, which scores the Administration's budget.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, this amendment does not endorse any one course of action. It calls upon the Finance Committee to develop bipartisan legislation to reform the Medicare program. Congress should work in a bipartisan fashion to extend the solvency of the Medicare program and to ensure that benefits under that program will be available to beneficiaries in the future. Congress should move expeditiously to consider the bipartisan recommendations of the chairman of the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare. It urges the President to work with the Congress in fixing the problems in the Medicare program. I thank my colleagues Senator Breaux, Senator Frist, Senator Kerrey, Senator Domenici, Senator Thompson, Senator Bob Graham, Senator Abraham as well as Senators Phil Gramm, Nickles, Grassley, Murkowski, and Ashcroft for cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. ROTH. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I point out to my distinguished colleague from Connecticut that we are not voting up or down the work of the Bipartisan Commission. We very clearly say in this resolution: Congress should work in a bipartisan fashion to extend the solvency of the Medicare program and to ensure that benefits under this program will be available to beneficiaries in the future. We go on, on the next page, paragraph 6: Congress should move expeditiously to consider the bipartisan recommendation of the chairman of the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare. Paragraph 7: Congress should continue to work with the President as he develops and presents his plan to fix the problems of the Medicare program. Mr. President, what I am saying is, we ought to forget this debate, trying to argue about surpluses and so forth. What we want to do is to get on with the job, to work in a bipartisan spirit. I think the Finance Committee is known for working in a bipartisan spirit. I say to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, when I say that we are going to start work on this after the recess, that is what I mean and that is what we will do. I think the distinguished Senator knows me well enough to know that I am a man of my word. I ask that we proceed. Let us get the job done.

Mr. ROTH. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. ROTH. Madam President, before that, may I ask that Senator Thompson be added as a cosponsor? I did include Senator Grassley and Senator Hatch.

Mr. ROTH. Madam President, I send a modification to the desk. On page 4, line 15, subparagraph 13 will read: The recommendations by Senator John Breaux and Representative William Thomas received the bipartisan support of a majority of members on the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare. We delete the words with respect to the Presidential appointees. Just let me say as a followthrough on the statement by the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, the Senator stated it exactly correct. We are on the road to real reform. We want to make sure that this Medicare program exists not only for the seniors today but indefinitely in the future. I pledge to the Senator that that is what my committee will do.

Mr. ROTH. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. ROTH. In answer to my friend and colleague, I say there is no language in the budget resolution that sets these priorities. But as I said earlier, it is my intent, as chairman of the Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over these matters, to begin hearings and to develop a consensus on Medicare when we return from the Easter recess. This will be a bipartisan effort. There is no way we can get anything done unless we are able to develop, as I said, a bipartisan consensus. It is my intent to move as expeditiously as possible upon our return.

Mr. ROTH. Well, as I indicated, it is the intent of the chairman to proceed expeditiously, upon our return, with hearings and developing a program on Medicare. As far as tax cuts are concerned, I don't intend to begin work on them probably until sometime early fall. But it is my intention to work immediately on Medicare.